Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes to be produced in an abbreviated and simplified form so that it will be more widely read by the general public.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the findings of the very distinguished and impartial members of the Council have added great weight to the evidence already provided by the improvement in the rate of sterling exchange and the rise in our reserves of gold and dollars that the financial policy of Her Majesty's Government is eminently sound? Would not he wish to take every possible step to make those things widely known?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most economists who submitted evidence at this Committee did so at the invitation of the Committee and not on their own initiative? As it is clear that the Committee took no notice of the advice of the overwhelming majority of them, is not the least the Committee can do to publish all that they say?

I will, with permission, deal with both Questions together, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with one another. The Government have no proposals to make either for winding up the Council or for making changes in its membership.

Have we not established a constitutional tradition that committees like this shall represent both sides in the controversial matters affecting the community and both views about such things as the degree of laissez faire and the use of subsidies and as these eminent
1318
gentlemen frankly admit their one-sided standpoint in this basic field—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly; they admit their one-sided standpoint on these issues which divide the community—is it right that they should go on unconstitutionally promulgating their own views?

I am afraid I cannot accept the imputation in that supplementary question. Of course they should go on promulgating their own views. It would be foolish if they promulgated anybody else's views. The hon. Member should not assume that failure to agree with him is evidence of partiality.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country as a whole is far more likely to pay attention to the views of men who have practical experience of affairs than to people who merely tell others how to do things?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far Her Majesty's Government accept the conclusion of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes that it would not be alarming if unemployment were to rise above the existing level.

A high and stable level of employment continues to be a main objective of Government policy, and it is our belief that the present restrictive measures which are necessary for the strength of sterling and stability in the price level do not conflict with this objective.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question? The Report indicates that the Council would not regard it as alarming if unemployment were at a higher level. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be very alarming for the people concerned to become unemployed, and for their families? Would it be alarming to the Government?

The Report is not to the Government alone but to the country
1319
as a whole. The Government do not consider it their function to comment on the Report as a whole, and even less upon individual sentences.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government intend to take following the first Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes; and whether he will state the Government's policy in regard to the continued existence of this Council.

The Council was established to report independently and from time to time to the community at large. No immediate action by the Government is called for on the recent Report, but they will naturally bear in mind the observations of the Council. There is no change in the Government's policy in regard to the Council.

Is it not clear that the only thing of value to come out of the Report is the assurance that we now have
1320
that Conservative freedom works only under a degree of unemployment, a stagnant economy, a high Bank Rate, and the fact that increased wages cannot be tied even to increased productivity? In these circumstances, with this Committee producing such a biased Report, which does not hold the support of both sides of industry, is it not a waste of public money to allow the Committee to continue in operation in its present form?